An inconvenient study.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Maybe if you and others did give a flying eff you might have less dead school children.

Well they actually have to get to school.

See abortion.

Going off topic on your own thread as poor attempt at deflection. Nice.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Sorry I thought you were talking about murdering kids.

My bad.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

So the majority of the act remained in place and even these checks can still take place at state level. Still looks like gun control works then by your measure of school shootings.

IF they chose.

They chose to break the law the 10th, also the 14th, but hey never mind all that.

No it doesn't.

Lanza killed his mother.

Cruz passed that background check.

So tell me again how they work?

School shootings are down. Your chosen measure.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

So the majority of the act remained in place and even these checks can still take place at state level. Still looks like gun control works then by your measure of school shootings.

IF they chose.

They chose to break the law the 10th, also the 14th, but hey never mind all that.

No it doesn't.

Lanza killed his mother.

Cruz passed that background check.

So tell me again how they work?

School shootings are down. Your chosen measure.

Wait what ?

School shootings are down without having an assault weapons ban for 14 years?

IS THAT what your telling me?

a reply to: neo96

We could just ban all semi-automatic weapons, like France did. And it worked out great for them!!

Except in 2015 where 150 were killed, 200 injured... by semi-automatic weapons.

More killed in one mass shooting then all mass shootings combined in the US when Obama was in office.

Since we are comparing apples and oranges and places to live besides the US...

a reply to: Lumenari

We could just ban all semi-automatic weapons, like France did. And it worked out great for them!!

Sure did!

Mass truck attacks.

a reply to: neo96

Shhh.. we're not supposed to talk about the truck that killed 80.

He had a gun... that's what did it!

a reply to: Lumenari

Then they can ban boxcutters.

After all we don't want any more mass building attacks.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: neo96

Because we are all far more alike, than what you want to give credit to!

unless we are all americans No it does not apply. yes were all humans but we all have different MORALS and ETHNIC backrounds. There IS not real comparison.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.

originally posted by: yuppa
yes were all humans but we all have different MORALS and ETHNIC backgrounds.

I think that in general everybody pretty much wants the same thing. They want the security to live their lives and hopefully peacefully procreate. Now, there are certainly differences in how people think they should go about that, but overall, people would rather not fight wars, would rather be safe and well-fed, and would rather see their children grow up safely. Do you know of any ethnic or national group that wants otherwise?

dub

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.

Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: neo96

We could just ban all semi-automatic weapons, like France did. And it worked out great for them!!

Except in 2015 where 150 were killed, 200 injured... by semi-automatic weapons.

More killed in one mass shooting then all mass shootings combined in the US when Obama was in office.

Since we are comparing apples and oranges and places to live besides the US...

Yet in 2015 even with 2 mass attacks in France the homicide rate was still far lower than in the US.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.

Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.

What has the rest of the world got to do with America?
Do you realise there are over 300 million guns in the US? How is gun control going to work? Are you expecting they all get handed in? What about the black market for guns? Huge supply and willing buyers. In Chicago, they can be bought on the street and illegal submachine guns are available. How does that compare to other countries?
What is your practical solution? Quit with the impractical nonsense and make some valid arguments instead of just parroting Piers Morgan type nonsense comparing other countries to America. There is no comparison to be made.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.

Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.

What has the rest of the world got to do with America?
Do you realise there are over 300 million guns in the US? How is gun control going to work? Are you expecting they all get handed in? What about the black market for guns? Huge supply and willing buyers. In Chicago, they can be bought on the street and illegal submachine guns are available. How does that compare to other countries?
What is your practical solution? Quit with the impractical nonsense and make some valid arguments instead of just parroting Piers Morgan type nonsense comparing other countries to America. There is no comparison to be made.

There is over 300 million guns because the US has insufficient gun regulation. That is kind of the point you have missed.

Introduce proper licensing and storage requirements like the rest of the developed world and you can begin to address the issue. Reduce the rate that new guns enter society an make sure they are going to responsible people who can safely use and store them would be good start.

There is no miracle overnight fix for gun violence but shrugging shoulders and going it's ok that far more people get killed hardly seems an answer.

The solution is certainly not having more guns.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.

Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.

What has the rest of the world got to do with America?
Do you realise there are over 300 million guns in the US? How is gun control going to work? Are you expecting they all get handed in? What about the black market for guns? Huge supply and willing buyers. In Chicago, they can be bought on the street and illegal submachine guns are available. How does that compare to other countries?
What is your practical solution? Quit with the impractical nonsense and make some valid arguments instead of just parroting Piers Morgan type nonsense comparing other countries to America. There is no comparison to be made.

There is over 300 million guns because the US has insufficient gun regulation. That is kind of the point you have missed.

Introduce proper licensing and storage requirements like the rest of the developed world and you can begin to address the issue. Reduce the rate that new guns enter society an make sure they are going to responsible people who can safely use and store them would be good start.

There is no miracle overnight fix for gun violence but shrugging shoulders and going it's ok that far more people get killed hardly seems an answer.

The solution is certainly not having more guns.

No, It's the point I raised, and you failed to adequately address the point.

So your 'practical' solution is to tell people they have to store the guns like the 'developed' world. What are you going to do when people ignore it? How many millions do you want to arrest? What resources are going to be used to enforce these storage cabinets? Are criminals going to obey the law and resist the access to guns on the street? You realise there are so many in the States, they can be bought on street corners, right? Not much like the UK is it?
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are trying to apply UK laws to the US, which is a completely different environment in many ways, especially when it comes to the availability of guns.

There is simply no way of reversing hundreds of years of gun ownership or getting a significant fraction of the guns off the street. Until you come up with a logical way of stopping criminals getting access to a supply of 300 million guns already in circulation and adequately enforcing laws, your arguments are hollow. Chicago is your prime example. Gun restrictions, yet easy access to guns and more shootings than anywhere else.

Your argument is like telling a teenage girl who got pregnant to stop having sex and she won't be pregnant anymore.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

then super, we don't need any more "gun control". Please let all the rest of the gun grabbers know, and everything will be everything.

Still more school shootings and homicides than anywhere else in the developed world, who all have stricter gun laws.

Gun control works. You can argue against it on constitutional or personal right grounds but arguing against its effectiveness is just wrong.

What has the rest of the world got to do with America?
Do you realise there are over 300 million guns in the US? How is gun control going to work? Are you expecting they all get handed in? What about the black market for guns? Huge supply and willing buyers. In Chicago, they can be bought on the street and illegal submachine guns are available. How does that compare to other countries?
What is your practical solution? Quit with the impractical nonsense and make some valid arguments instead of just parroting Piers Morgan type nonsense comparing other countries to America. There is no comparison to be made.

There is over 300 million guns because the US has insufficient gun regulation. That is kind of the point you have missed.

Introduce proper licensing and storage requirements like the rest of the developed world and you can begin to address the issue. Reduce the rate that new guns enter society an make sure they are going to responsible people who can safely use and store them would be good start.

There is no miracle overnight fix for gun violence but shrugging shoulders and going it's ok that far more people get killed hardly seems an answer.

The solution is certainly not having more guns.

No, It's the point I raised, and you failed to adequately address the point.

So your 'practical' solution is to tell people they have to store the guns like the 'developed' world. What are you going to do when people ignore it? How many millions do you want to arrest? What resources are going to be used to enforce these storage cabinets? Are criminals going to obey the law and resist the access to guns on the street? You realise there are so many in the States, they can be bought on street corners, right? Not much like the UK is it?
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are trying to apply UK laws to the US, which is a completely different environment in many ways, especially when it comes to the availability of guns.

There is simply no way of reversing hundreds of years of gun ownership or getting a significant fraction of the guns off the street. Until you come up with a logical way of stopping criminals getting access to a supply of 300 million guns already in circulation and adequately enforcing laws, your arguments are hollow. Chicago is your prime example. Gun restrictions, yet easy access to guns and more shootings than anywhere else.

So because there is no instant overnight solution nothing should be done?

A large number of homicides and mass shootings are conducted by legally held guns. Many (probably most) of the ilegally held guns were originally held legally.

The purpose of gun control had to be to make it more difficult to posses a firearm. (Anyone claiming you can have affective gun control without doing this is wrong)

By having stricter controls on legal firearms it becomes much easier to deal with the illegal firearms. Again not an overnight solution.

The UK isn't the only mode of gun control and I would agree it would not work in the US. However it's possible to have stricter controls while still having a gun culture and relatively widespread gun ownership.

Chicago has gun laws aren't as strict as made out and the majority of guns used come from outside the city. Unless they are going to set up checkpoints at the city limits its own gun laws are never going to be effective.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I still don't think you understand the point. I find general discussions about gun law banal.

What specifically can be done that will make it less likely for a criminal or a person who is unstable get a gun and use it on innocent civilians?

So far you've talked about licencing and storage boxes. Neither are enforceable as there are hundreds of millions of guns out there already and even if you managed to implement some kind of licensing protocol that a majority agreed to, you'd still have millions and millions of guns readily available. As for storage boxes, well, good luck with enforcing that law with so many guns around.

The argument about Chicago getting guns from elsewhere as the cause of their problems doesn't make any logical sense. Why would the places they are getting guns from not have the same issues to the same extent? The gun laws in Chicago have made the issue worse, not better. Guns have simply become more desirable and there is a steady flow as I have said.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

I still don't think you understand the point.

I find general discussions about gun law banal.

What specifically can be done that will make it less likely for a criminal or a person who is unstable get a gun and use it on innocent civilians?

So far you've talked about licencing and storage boxes. Neither are enforceable as there are hundreds of millions of guns out there already and even if you managed to implement some kind of licensing protocol that a majority agreed to, you'd still have millions and millions of guns readily available. As for storage boxes, well, good luck with enforcing that law with so many guns around.

So what you are saying is that all these good law abiding gun owners keep hearing about won't obey the law?

Specific examples?

Licence required for any type of firearm - standard required varies depending on type of firearm.

Safe storage required for all firearms.

Evaluation required for buying any firearm with periodic reassessment.

The kind of thing pretty much every other developed country requires.